Top 10 issues between Evangelicals and Catholics
Response to Allen Parr on his show "The Beat"

Allen Parr appears to be a prayerful man who loves Jesus. His approach to the Bible is often very smart. His delivery is charismatic and appealing. He is usually careful about his theology as he presents his differing positions to his fellow Evangelical Christians.

This care and charitable disposition disappeared in his video about Catholics. We can't fault Allen Parr because he's been heavily influenced by the popular Evangelical Pastor and apologist, Mike Winger who lumps Catholics in with non-Christian sects like the Mormons and Jehovah witnesses, etc.

To his credit, Allen provides a top 10 list of discussion points between Catholics and Evangelicals. We think our responses below will be a good place to start for those new to Catholic/Evangelical dialogue, because we provide a short response to each issue with links to full discussions. At a time when Christian persecution is on the rise and the "great reset" might morph into apocalyptic control, we would like to see more cooperation among all believers in Christ.

Allen Parr agrees that Jesus founded the Catholic Church

Allen Parr opens with:

The word Catholic simply means universal. So there was a long period of time where all of Christianity was comprised of what was called the Roman Catholic Church.

He understands that Catholicism is the original Christianity from which all Evangelicalism comes (through the Reformation), but by the end of the video he infers that Catholics are not Christian.

That is like saying the tulip flower comes from a dandelion root.

When we hear "Roman Catholic" we cringe, because its usually used in a derogatory context. It refers to the "Roman Rite" which is only one of 23 Catholic rites reflecting the universal nature of the Catholic Church. We prefer "Catholic" which was in regular use by 110 AD, evidenced by Ignatius' letters (ekklesia katholicos). 

Martin Luther

Allen Parr says:

Martin Luther ... disagreed with some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and felt that they were not biblical ...they broke off from the Roman Catholic Church and decided to try to reform it ... Protestant Reformation ...

Martin Luther's 95 Theses were not about the Bible, but about the misuse of Indulgences which was a valid concern at the time. Luther had a deep devotion to Mary. He also wrote that "Christ really is present at the Eucharist". He believed in Purgatory, as did all Christians well into the Reform. He believed in the value of praying for the dead, and asking for intersession from saints. His beliefs were much closer to Catholicism than modern Evangelicalism.

Justification by faith

Allen Parr says:

Evangelical Christianity believes and teaches that faith alone in Jesus Christ apart from works is enough ...Catholics ...believe in Jesus but you also have to do all sorts of works and they have these seven sacraments two of which are baptism and the Eucharist and all sorts of other things confirmation, and if you do these good works along with believing in Jesus Christ, and you live a good life then and only then can you expect to be in heaven

Response:

Pope Benedict XVI taught:

“Luther’s phrase ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St. Paul speaks of faith that works through love” (General Audience, Nov. 19, 2008).

In common speech, the term faith is a synonym for belief. When coupled with the word alone and used to describe the method of our justification, it communicates to most people the erroneous idea that we can be saved by intellectual belief alone. This is the view that the Council of Trent rejected.

The Pope and Lutheran World Federation cosigned a document agreeing on the role of faith in salvation. entitled "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (JDDJ). Sections 161-162 of the Catechism says:

(161) "Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation ...therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification...(162) Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man... 

The Catechism also talks about our response to faith, (sections 161-162 and 1997-2000) which is to go out into the world and do as Jesus would have us do. Which is what we call Charity.

We have a separate articles on Faith vs. Works and on the Sacraments

Sola Scriptura

Allen Parr says:

Evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is the only and final authority on all matters of what we call faith and practice faith, ...Catholics ... believe that the Bible is authoritative but they also put the Catholic Church and the Pope and also their traditions in the church as being ...on par with the Bible.

Response

• The Bible didn't just fall out of the sky, spiral bound with an NIV sticker on it. It has a rich Catholic heritage.
• Jesus instituted and commissioned his Church first, with an oral tradition, much the way the Bible was first transferred by oral tradition in the early days of Judaism.
• 30 to 60 years after the Resurrection, He inspired members of his Church to write the infallible books of the Bible.
• At the Catholic Synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD), He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Canon of the Bible.
• Over the centuries He inspired the Magisterium of the Church to interpret Bible passages when divisions or confusion arose, as he promised (Mat 16:18) so there is unity of belief (Jn 17:21), which why Catholics don't have 40,000 denominations like non-Catholic Churches.

Evangelicals try to reign in misinterpretations of the Bible through commentaries. (Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, MacArthur Study Bible, etc.) This has only been marginally successful, evidenced by Allen Parr's video about 7 things Evangelicals should not argue over (women pastors, spiritual gifts, music, deliverance, tithes, pre/post/mid trib, predestination vs free will).

The history of the Bible is here.

The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone):

"...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16)

This passage says Scripture is "inspired" and "useful". Catholics totally agree. When this was written, there was no New Testament or Canon, so a Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage implies that most of the New Testament isn't authoritative, which is obviously untrue.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18)

Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls said:

"Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!"

Even the word Bible is a Catholic term meaning books (Greek: βυβλος) from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. The chapter/verse numbering system was introduced 1205 by Cardinal Stephen Langton.

We have a separate article on Catholics and the Bible.

Number of Books in the Bible: 73 or 66?

Allen Parr says:

Evangelical Christians believe there are 66 books in the Bible and after that the Bible or the Canon of Scripture was closed you cannot add to it you cannot take away from it. However they believe in 14 extra book called the Apocrypha and unfortunately many things in the Apocrypha are just simply contradict much of which is found in the Bible.

Response

There are 7 Old Testament books in question, not "14 extra books". This appears to be a rookie apologetics mistake.

The first Bible that had 66 books emerged in the 1800's, which was over 250 years after the Reformation. Every Bible before the Reformation and well into it, contained the 7 Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books.

There is no contradiction between the Deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Bible, although some of it was inconvenient for Martin Luther's theology.

We have a separate article on the Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books.

Pope

Allen Parr says:

So when the Pope speaks something , it is considered to be authoritative just as the Bible is or whatever traditions have developed within the Catholic Church.

It is extremely rare that the Pope speaks in an authoritative way on matters affecting Faith and Morals. There have been about 3 pronouncements in 200 years. No Papal (Magisterial) dogmatic declaration, or tradition contradicts the Bible. Feel free to use our site map to look up any Catholic Dogma or Tradition for full discussion.

Catholics believe Jesus was evoking Isaiah 22:22 when he said Peter was the Rock upon which he would build his Church (Mat 16:18). This is a permanent office.

Some Evangelicals think that the Greek word that means "rock" did not refer to Peter but only to his "declaration." We don't think it holds up under scrutiny grammatically, linguistically, historically and most important, Biblically. Jesus built his Church on people, not a declaration. 

We have a separate articles on the Pope and an article on "Traditions of Men".

How are Christians supposed to approach God

Here, Allen says

... we don't have to go through a priest ...in order to get to God.

... That is the reason why the New Testament describes us as being a royal priesthood, because we can go to God ourselves.

Response

Allen Parr makes it sound like we have to make an appointment with the priest every time we want to talk to God!

Every serious Catholic has an intense personal relationship with Jesus punctuated by frequent direct prayer every day. The Characteristics of a good Catholic are here.

Common priesthood of the laity verses ministerial priesthood

Catholics agree that all true Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:9). This is the "common priesthood."

At the last supper, Jesus invited his apostles (not all disciples) to a very special "ministerial priesthood" which has been passed down from generation to generation through succession, in the tradition of the Levites through the person of Jesus who is "High priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7:17).

The role of the ministerial priest is to administer the sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist [Communion], Penance, Anointing the Sick, Matrimony, Holy Orders), in addition to leading and pastoring the community.

Evangelicals have their own versions of all these duties performed by Evangelical Pastors. It's kind of a "Catholic lite" and not as formal, because they don't consider them as powerful or concrete (sacramental) as Catholics. However, Evangelical pastors perform baptisms, weddings, communion, council ling, make suggestions for restitution of harms, etc.

How do Priests have the power to forgive?

Allen Parr says:

Catholics on the other hand believe that in order for you to receive forgiveness of your sins you have to confess your sins to a Catholic priest that priest then takes your sins to God ...and in doing so you have to recite a certain number of Hail Marys which then elevates Mary on the same level as Jesus, which creates a whole other problem...

Response

Although Jesus gave power to all who believe in Christ, there was special consideration to the eleven apostles (Matthew 28:16-20):

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them ... And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’

Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' (Matt 16:18-20)

Many Evangelicals have trouble with the idea that a priest can "forgive sins." Part of this is simply a misunderstanding of the position of the priest. Paragraph 1442 of the Catechism says:

Only God forgives sins (Mk 2:7) Since he is the Son of God Jesus himself says "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power "Your sins are forgiven" (Mk 2:5, Lk 7:48)  Further he gives this power to men to exercise in his name (Jn 20:21-23)

The distinction is that God does the forgiving, the priest has simply been commissioned to carry this out. (2 Cor 5:18)  The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making appeal" through him and pleading "Be reconciled to God" (2 Cor 5:20)

Sin happens in the material world and therefore the forgiveness must also manifest itself in the material world as well as in heaven. The only way that this can happen is through a human being - a priest.

Did God end the priesthood when he ripped the temple curtain after the crucification?

Allen Parr says this meant that the power was ripped from the Priesthood.

Jesus certainly ripped the authority of the priesthood from the Levites and placed it upon Jesus "High priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7:17) which is a different and superior lineage to that of the Levites. Jesus, in turn placed hands on the apostles at the last supper an instituted the ministerial priesthood discussed above.

There are numerous interpretations why God ripped the temple curtain after the crucification, which are discussed by the Early Church Fathers and early Christians. The interpretation that it was to remove the priesthood from God's relationship to his people is a novel modern construct. This was not believed by the early Church nor at any time in history before the reform. Nor was it believed by Martin Luther, the father of the reform.

Mary

Allen Parr says:

... Mary was just a sinful woman just like you and I, who happened to be chosen to be the mother of Jesus.

Telling a Catholic that Mary was just a sinful woman, who just happened to be chosen to carry Jesus is like telling a Jew that the Ark of the Covenant was just an old box that happened to be chosen to carry the 10 commandments.

If you want to understand how Catholics think about Mary 
look at how the Israelites treated the Ark of the Covenant

The Ark carried the Word of God made stone (10 Commandments) and it was made perfectly and intentionally. Mary carried the Word of God made flesh when she was pregnant with him and she was preserved perfectly and intentionally by God. (Jn 1:1, cf. Ez 11:19)

The Ark of the Covenant disappeared during the Babylonian conquest (600 B.C.) never to be seen again to this day (Jer 3:16). Catholics don't think they will find it, because the Ark of the New Covenant is now in Heaven, presented as Mary, the mother of Jesus. (Rev. 11:19-12:6) The woman who gave birth to the the Saviour is the verse after the Ark discovered in heaven. There were no chapter and verse numbers when it was written.

We have a separate menu of topics on Mary

Purgatory and prayers for the "dead"

Allen Parr says:

Purgatory... this is the idea that not everyone is ready to go directly into God's presence. Instead you may have to stop off at this place called Purgatory where you will need to be purged of your sins first hence the word purgatory before you are able to go into the presence of God.

This idea of prayers for the dead and this is the idea that those of us who are living can somehow for those who have already died and our prayers can somehow boost their status and free them of whatever sin may be separating them from spending eternity with God .

Response

C.S. Lewis, the great Protestant writer who wrote Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, says:

"Of course I pray for the dead. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? I believe in purgatory. Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn, a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be purgatory."

- C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on prayer, p. 107-109

We have a separate article on Purgatory.

Saints: Is Heaven a "dead" place?

Allen Parr says:

Prayers to the dead and so instead of praying to Jesus only they pray to Mary pray to Peter pray to Paul and other people who have died and passed on.

Response:

The Catholic Church doesn't think heaven is a "dead" place. Its brimming with life. (Mat 19:29, 25:46, Mat 10:17-22, Mk 10:30, Lk 10:25-30, Lk 18:18-30, Jn 3:15-16, Rev 4:10). Lazarus was by Abraham's side (Lk 16:22). Moses and Elijah were alive beside Jesus. (Mat 17:3). "Graves were opened." (Mat 27:52). Jesus said, "Now he is a God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive." (Lk 20:39-40)

If an Evangelical went to their pastor saying "Please pray for me and with me, I've been diagnosed with cancer," the pastor wouldn't say "absolutely not, go straight to Jesus!"

It is integral to all Christianity to ask for intersession by those more experienced in the spiritual life. The question is whether that can be done for those in Heaven, and how would we know they are in heaven. The process of Canonization is how the Church ensures a person is in heaven, and therefore alive.

Evangelicals don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Church so they don't think there is any way of knowing whether someone is alive in heaven or dammed, and so they don't communicate with them.

The first century Catacombs have walls of hundreds of inscriptions asking the martyred Peter and Paul to pray for them.

" ... we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses . . ." (Hebrews 12:1 - RSV)

What about Deuteronomy 18:10-11?

Necromancy is forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10-11. It is communication with the dead in order to obtain hidden or secret knowledge beyond our ordinary human powers, whether about the future or current events, which is usually done through a medium via a seance or other dark ceremony. In the verses leading to this passage, Saul went to God, but got no answer, so he defiantly went to the medium.

The verses also forbid “divination,” and seeking a “medium,” a “sorcerer,” and a “wizard,” all of which attempt to gain knowledge beyond ordinary human intelligence. Moses follows this verse in the Bible with “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed.” There is no need to go to mediums, sorcerers, wizards, or necromancers to gain knowledge, because God will send a prophet of his own.

We have a separate article on the Saints.

Transubstantiation

Allen says:

...you're actually eating a piece of Jesus's flesh and you're actually drinking Jesus blood when you're taking communion

This idea does not align with what the Scriptures teach because it clearly says that the bread is a symbol of Jesus body and the wine or grape juice is a symbol of his blood not the body in the blood itself.

This is a sloppy assertion. John 6:48-58 says

54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

Jesus was very clear, so much so that many disciples left him.

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him. 

Jesus doesn't run after them saying "hey wait, I was just talking symbolically, come back."

67 So Jesus asked the twelve, ‘Do you also wish to go away?’  68 Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 

Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD) wrote to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius as an explanation of Christian practices. Chapter 66 he says:

"And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist]... so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh..."

Every Church Father and every Christian up to a few hundred years ago believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

There are even many Evangelical churches that teach that communion is truly the Body of Christ, although without a valid consecration this would be incorrect.

We have a separate article on the Eucharist.

Infant baptism

In the comments Allen writes:

We do not believe in baptizing babies for salvation. We believe you can dedicate your baby to the Lord but that does not guarantee true or salvation. Baptism must happen subsequent to salvation.

We don't think Baptism guarantees salvation, only that it washes away sin. If at a later date, a Christian chooses serious sin with full awareness and consent, then that Grace is lost.

The reformers and most mainstream Protestant denominations baptize babies.

The Catacombs from the 200's have paintings of baby baptisms.

Catholics believe the Bible when it says that Baptism washes away sin. (Acts 22:16) So for us, it is not as much about what we give during Baptism (i.e., a profession of faith) but it is about what we get, which is a clean slate.

We didn't choose to be born into humanity but we nevertheless received the grace of human life. Similarly, Catholics don't think babies have to consciously choose Baptism in order to receive its grace. 

We don't ask a baby if it wants to eat or be changed. We just feed or change her. We take these simple and logical actions to physically clean up a baby. Catholics think it is even more important to do the same thing spiritually, through Baptism. We need to let our Lord wash away the "original sin" from the baby. 

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." (Acts 2:38-39)

Jesus said "let the little children come to me." (Lk 18:16) In Greek it is Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha. The Greek word brepha means "infants." The Lord did not require these infants to make a personal decision for Christ.

Infant circumcision was the sign of Old Covenant. 
Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. 
It makes sense that Baptism includes infants.

The famous Evangelical theologian Frances A. Schaeffer also maintained that an infant should be baptised because of Baptism's correspondence with circumcision.

We have a full article on Infant Baptism.

Finally: Are Catholics Christians?

Allen Parr concludes with:

It is not my job ...to decide who is a Christian and who is not. ...What we ...are called to do is assess whether someone's belief lines up with a Christian belief ...

To say "Catholics are not Christians" is to ignore the history of Christianity. The name Christian predates all Protestant and Evangelical Churches by over a millennium. Many Evangelicals who think that Catholics are not Christian may be surprised to learn they accept the authority of several Catholic councils every time they pick up their Bible. Any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. Their complete unity over the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is only one example.

• The Catholic Church defined the "Trinity" and fought the heresy of "Arianism"
• The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible
• The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented in the 16th century. Thousands of Monks in monasteries faithfully copied Scripture, ten years per copy, with impeccable accuracy..

We have a separate article answering if Catholic are Christians.